Am I free?

[LaoOmologo]

The closest anybody could ever get to being free would be the strong in an anarchy. And even then there is the restrictions of cause and effect. It is liberty, not freedom that you should desire.

However freedom of speech is important and it is wrong for civilized government to impede on that liberty, if somebody says something offensive, it is the offended's task to beat the **** out whoever offended them. Or at least say a few choice words back if they feel so inclined, not the government's job. Any other way is just barbaric and primitive.

Finally someone who sees my point. Freedom IS anarchy. Freedom of speech is also a good thought, but it's those f**king idiots who take it to the court. You can't send someone to jail just because you said something stuid.

[Skirata]

To allow a man's "freedom" you have to allow the consequences too. A man with freedom, has the freedom to do whatever he want. He is free, and you can't do anything. He can rape, murder and steal, and we can't do anything about it. Punishing a free man, is like punishing a lion. In the end it's man who punish you. What I mean is, "Freedom" is a good thought, but of course it can't come without bad consequences.

Who said anything about punishing man? Man would sooner or later see the folly of it's ways. Man would end up punishing himself.

The closest anybody could ever get to being free would be the strong in an anarchy.

Anarchy was the beginning. Why not let it be the end?

[LaoOmologo]

Man would end up punishing himself.

The punishing was an example. And the thing I quoted, was what I ment with my post.

[Skirata]

The punishing was an example. And the thing I quoted, was what I ment with my post.

I'd agree that freedom would show man as his true evil self. That is why I would support it. The only one that can fix man is man.

[LaoOmologo]

I'd agree that freedom would show man as his true evil self. That is why I would support it. The only one that can fix man is man.

Yes, there you see it too. But who would use their power to do whatever at anyone else? Who would give when he can consume? If I could get away with everything, I'd certainly not use that to help others. I can say that I would, but in the end, I wouldn't. It is in the human nature. We are a corrupt race. An egosentric race. And the only thing that can fix me is me.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Here is a selected passage from one of my essays in the field of political philosophy explaining the composition and framework of despotisms, stratocracies and other totalitarian forms of government in relation to republics:

On the Instability of Republics and the Composition of Autocracies, Despotisms and Stratocracies

Thomas Hobbes in his political treatise Leviathan or, On the Ecclesiastical and Civil Commonwealth expounded on the form of government that would provide order and stability amidst rising levels of chaos and dissension within the particular political entity. After years of dissonance, military conflict, political discord and the rise of petty factions in the English Civil War between the Royalists dedicated to King Charles I and the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell which served as the backdrop of Leviathan or, On the Ecclesiastical and Civil Commonwealth, Thomas Hobbes viewed civil war with the total lack of governmental control or anarchy as the worst possible situation. To prevent such a crisis from arising, Thomas Hobbes listed an absolute monarchy [An autocracy] as the key force in maintaining order, discipline and justice. The despot ruled an autarchy that served all the needs of the executive body of the state, either as a single individual or an oligarchic body. The populace of the state served the needs of the head(s) of state and was similar to the description of a leviathan: a mighty force encompassing and presiding over all the affairs of state so as to maintain justice as well as maintaining the very survival of the state. The head(s) of the state held supreme secular and ecclesiastical hegemony which is expressed by the political concept of caesaropapism. Though the head(s) of state held complete dominion within the state, there was a social contract between the ruler and the ruled. Since, according to Thomas Hobbes, people were brutal, base, vulgar and horrific in their natural and savage state, the hegemon that represented the Hobbesian ruler(s) would exert discipline and a moral code upon the populace so as to maintain peace and concord. In return, the denizens of the state professed and practiced total devotion to the head(s) of the state. Thomas Hobbes was following in the tradition of Thucydides and was a major proponent of the branch of political philosophy called Realism.

I agree with certain parts of Hobbesian theory due to my admiration of the doctrine of the political theory of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is the belief of a government that is strongly centralized so as to consolidate political hegemony within the executive head of a state. For the political theory of Bonapartism which was to have derived in part from Hobbesian theory, I always look to the example of Napoleon I Bonaparte. As in accordance to Thomas Hobbes, Napoleon I Bonaparte sought for the subservience of religion to the affairs to the state. In addition, there were a few though somewhat feeble checks and balances that were in the guise of counteracting his power but in reality such was illusory. There were the Tribunate, the Senate House and the Plebiscite that instead of limiting his power, gave Napoleon I Bonaparte a greater array of political flexibility and control. I also adhere to Hobbesian theory due to the failure of republics to maintain a stable foundation and a cohesive political infrastructure for any long duration of time. In principle, a republic according to Marcus Tullius Cicero is a complex system of checks and balances; however, Niccolo Machiavelli stated in his republican treatise Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy that it took a single individual to found a great and populous state. It is my emendation that people need to be bestowed with rights and liberties that are in turn checked by the maintenance of discipline, order and justice by the sheer power of the sovereign or the oligarchic political structure. This is why I belief that Hobbesian theory though not the most principled of all governments is practical and can form a lasting structure as opposed to the dangers of anarchy, social disequilibrium, civil disunion and civil strife that arises out of states or domains that lack a highly centralized, bureaucratic and stratified government.

Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu based his ideas on Polybius, Titus Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli, Plato and Aristotle. His concept of government was based on a balance of powers resulting in political equilibrium and a concord between the multifarious branches of government. A prime example of a mode of government based on Montesquieu's theoretical constructions was the July Monarchy of Louis-Philippe I that lasted from 1830-1848 CE. Louis-Philippe I was a constitutional monarch who held more limited powers than during the Bourbon Restoration [1815-1830 CE] of King Louis XVIII [1815-1824 CE]and King Charles X [1824-1830 CE], and was limited in political power by the legislative body, or an oligarchic mode of government. During the reign of Louis-Philippe I of the July Monarchy, the electoral voting capabilities increased from 94,000 individuals in 1830 CE to over 200,000 individuals in 1848 CE. Though this version of a balance of powers as expounded by Montesquieu achieved political equipollence, it was ephemeral due to the hubris of petty individuals that strove to tear asunder the institutions of civil society. Montesquieu noted that contumelious individuals could eradicate even the most balanced and fairest of governments. For the explanation of the dilapidation or the decay of civil government, Charles de Montesquieu adhered to the Polybian Cycle of government. According to such a system, out of anarchy a principate would arise under a just and benevolent ruler. After a certain amount of generations had passed, the principate would devolve into despotism. With poisonous passions, the despot/autarch would overwhelm and consume the principles that founded the glorious principate. Thus, an aristocracy would arise. However, with each passing generation, the aristocrats became more indolent, despondent, uxorious and ostentatious. In such throes of civil discord the aristocracy would degenerate into an oligarchy. Enraged, the populace would rebel against the current order and remove it. A democracy would arise in which all were given moderate freedom and order kept chaos at bay. As many generations would pass, demagogues would arise and the populace would become licentious, elemental and irrational. Finally, chaos would be unleashed through civil disunion leading to a state of anarchy. These actions are cyclical and as according to Charles de Montesquieu and Niccolo Machiavelli would continue to cycle indefinitely until the interference of external forces.

Finally, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel once noted that men exist only as a collective whole, a dense agglomeration of repressed individuals that conform to the whim of society. It is the duty of the great man of history or the Hegelian World-Historical Individual to usher in the ultimate synthesis and sow the progression of humanity. The common rabble that represents the people is indeed savage, licentious, brutish, ignorant, irresolute, fickle and wild.

[Bob B.]

I wouldnt mind being a slave

why would you want to be a slave? thats dumb i mean you have so many privleges that you take for grantet, that we all do.... dont want to be a slave plz thanks

[LaoOmologo]

why would you want to be a slave? thats dumb i mean you have so many privleges that you take for grantet, that we all do.... dont want to be a slave plz thanks

That was something I joked about... read the last 2 pages, and you will discover what we really were talking about

[Skirata]

Yes, there you see it too. But who would use their power to do whatever at anyone else? Who would give when he can consume? If I could get away with everything, I'd certainly not use that to help others. I can say that I would, but in the end, I wouldn't. It is in the human nature. We are a corrupt race. An egosentric race. And the only thing that can fix me is me.

Though man is evil it is still an animal and animals, however bestial in nature, require the existence of other animals. That is why man will pull itself out of destruction in case of ultimate destruction. Not because of it's high-end abilities and thought processes, but because of its primitive side.

@Conrad

I read your passage and I have to agree. I noticed you used CE instead of AD... interesting...

why would you want to be a slave? thats dumb i mean you have so many privleges that you take for grantet, that we all do.... dont want to be a slave plz thanks

When one thinks about it slaves have benefits other citizens don't. Slaves are considered property and therefore are most costly. Slave owners aren't so likely to endanger the welfare of their extremely costly property. It would be like throwing away your computer for no reason.

[LaoOmologo]

Though man is evil it is still an animal and animals, however bestial in nature, require the existence of other animals. That is why man will pull itself out of destruction in case of ultimate destruction. Not because of it's high-end abilities and thought processes, but because of its primitive side.

I noticed you used CE instead of AD... interesting...

Yes, that is true. The only thing that is diffrent from human and animal, is our brain capacity.

CE? What does that stand for?